330 
MOLLUSCA. 
Mollusca. of Zoology he effected the most important alterations ; but 
=~ his attempts to reform the science of conchology, were far 
from being equally successful. To the subject he never 
was much attached, nor does he appear to have availed him- 
self sufficiently of the labours of those authors whom we 
have mentioned, and of others who preceded him. The 
primary divisions which he employed, were those which 
Major had established, and his genera, with a few excep- 
tions, were those in common use. His merit as a concho- 
logist rests entirely on the accurately defined terms, the 
concise specific characters, and the convenient trivial 
names which he employed and introduced. The particu- 
lar consideration of the Linnean genera, and the subse- 
quent changes which have been introduced into them, will 
form the subject of a separate section. 
For some time after the publication of the Systema Na- 
tur@, the illustrious Swede enjoyed a very dangerous repu- 
tation. All his arrangements were regarded as of such high 
authority, that it was considered as impious to attempt to in- 
troduce any change ; so that conchology, and along with it 
the study of the mollusca, according to the artificial method, 
remained a long time stationary. At last in France, a coun- 
try which refused to submit to the fetters of the Linnean 
school, several new systems were® proposed, which had for 
their object the restoration of those well-founded genera, 
which Linneus, in his too great desire to simplify, had sup- 
pressed, and the accommodation of the divisions of the 
science to those new relations which a more extensive know- 
ledge of species had discovered. In this number Bosc stands 
eminently conspicuous. In his work entitled Histoire Na- 
turelle des Coquilles, des Vers et des Crustaces, and in the 
conchological articles of the Dictionnaire d’ Histoire Na- 
turelle, he has favoured the world with a detail of his sys- 
tem, the outline of which we shall here present to our rea- 
ders : 
I. CoquiziEs MULTIVALVEs. 
1, Les unes n’ont point de charniére. 
Oscabrion, Anatif, Balanite. 
2. Les autres en ont une. 
Pholade, Taret, Fistulane, Anomie, Calceole. 
II. Coqurutes Bivatves. 
i. Equivalves. 
]. A charniére sans dents. 
Pinna, Modiole, Moule, Anodonte. 
2. A charniére garnie des dents. 
A. A une dent. ‘ 
Mulette, Crassalette, Paphie, Mactre. 
B. A deux dents. 
a. Simple. Trigonie, Tridacne, Hyppope, Cardite, Lu- 
pares Petricole, Venericarde, Solen, Capse, Sanguino- 
aire. 
b. Agee des surnumeraires. 
Telline, Venus. 
C. A quatre dents. 
Bucarde, Mérétrice, Lucine. 
D. A beaucoup de dents. 
Nucule, Petoncle, Arche, Cucullee. 
Tsocarde, Donace, Cyclade, 
ii. Inequivalves. 
1. A charniére sans dents. 
Acarde, Radiolite, Vulselle, Marteau, Huitre, Avicule, 
Peigne, Lime, Houlette, Cranie, Hyale, Linqule. 
2. A une dent. 
Came, Corbule. 
3. A deux dents. ° 
Spondyle, Plicatule, Placune, Pandore, Terebratule, Cal- 
ceole. 
4. A plusieurs dents. 
Perne. 
Ill. Coqurzzes Untvanves. 
i. Uniloculaires. 
1. Sans spirale. 
A. En Calotte. 
Patelle, Oscane. 
B. En Tube. 
Vermiculaire, Silicaire, Arrosoir. 
2. En spirale. 
A. L’ouverture entiére et sans canal a sa base. 
Carinaire, Haliotide, Sigaret, Stomate, Argonaute, Con- 
cholepas, Nerite, Natice, Helicine, Helice, Volvyaire, 
Bulle, Jacinthe, Turritelle, Cyclostome, Bulime, Sabot, 
Toupie. 
B. L’ouverture echancrée et canaliculée a sa base. 
Cérite, Pyrule, Rocher, Rostelaire, Strombe, Buccin, 
Casque, Vis, Pourpre, Volute, Ovule, Tarriére, Porce- 
laine, Cone. 
il. Multiloculaires. 
Nautile, Orbulite, Ammonite, Planulite, Camérine, Rotu- 
lite, Turrilite, Baculite, Spirule, Orthocére, Hippurite, 
Belemnite. 
In this system which we have exhibited, the arrangement 
is more methodical, and the genera are more definite, than 
in the Linnzan system. It unquestionably holds the first 
rank in the modern artificial methods. 
There is a class of writers whose labours deserve some 
notice in this place. We allude to those who have devoted 
their attention to the very minute shells, so common among 
the sand on every sea-coast. These are too small to be 
examined by the naked eye, and from the instrument em- 
ployed in their investigation, they are usually termed M- 
croscopie Shells. Plancus, in his work, De Conchis Arimin- 
ensibus minus notis, published in 1739, may be considered 
as the first who drew the attention of conchologists to these 
nearly invisible objects. J. F. Hoffman, in his Déssertati- 
uncula de Cornu Ammonis nativo Littoris Bergensis in 
Norvegia, published in the Transactions of the Electoral 
Academy of Mentz, 1757, and in his essay de Tubulis Ver- 
micularibus Cornu Ammonis referentibus, ibid. 1761, made 
us acquainted with various species of minute nautili pro- 
duced on the northern shores. Nor did those discoveries 
fail to excite interest in this country. Boys and Walker 
devoted their attention to the subject, and gave to the world 
the result of their labours, in a thin quarto, entitled, Tes- 
tacea Minuta rariora nuperrime detecta in arena littoris 
Sandvicensis, London, 1784. Other observers, equally ar- 
dent and successful, have increased our knowledge of the 
forms of these minute bodies, particularly Soldani, who, in 
his Testaceographia ac Zoophytographia parva et micros- 
copica, 1789 and 1795, exhibited many figures of the mi- 
nute shells of Portoferrara, &c. Mr. Adams likewise de- 
scribed the minute species which he observed on the coast 
of Pembrokeshire, in the third and fifth volumes of the 
Transactions of the Linnean Society of London, and other 
species of British growth have been investigated by the au- 
thor of Testacea Britannica. We shall close this list with 
Mollusca. 
—_——_ 
Microsco- 
pic shells. 
noticing the Testacea Microscopica aliaque minuta ex gen-' 
eribus Argonauta et Nautilus ad Naturam Picta et De- 
scripta, Vienna, 1798. It is the joint production of L. A. 
Fichel and J. P. C. A. Moll, and merits an attentive perusal. 
We are aware that such microscopic investigations are 
regarded by some conchologists as useless, so that the mi- 
nute species are excluded from their systems. But it is 
surely a strange method of proceeding in natural history, to 
judge of the merits or importance of species from their size. 
It is true that we are still ignorant of the inhabitants of 
those shells, and may long continue to be so; but our pre- 
sent knowledge of these shells has enabled us to fill up many 
blanks, to perceive several new relations, and even to draw 
some important conclusions. 
